Anyone in a hostile environment is a victim. Not saying his performance had no bearing, but claiming he is not a victim ignores the basic issue, there was a hostile work environment. Does anyone really doubt that, in their heart of hearts?

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you.

That's a fair point. Did Kluwe approach the union about this? I haven't heard anything about him going that route.

Nor have I.

I do doubt how hostile the work environment was when he seemed to have no problem with the comment until over a year later and he was rejected by several other teams. It didn't appear to bother him enough to take it to any of Preifer's superiors, including the owner that he openly admits supported his position.

All of his angst and moral outrage appears to have manifested long after he was in that workplace. He didn't even feel so threatened that he subdued his joking around - mooning people and making Sandusky jokes doesn't strike me as the actions of a victim in fear for his job.

All of his angst and moral outrage appears to have manifested long after he was in that workplace. He didn't even feel so threatened that he subdued his joking around - mooning people and making Sandusky jokes doesn't strike me as the actions of a victim in fear for his job.

To be fair, "hostile" work environments are rarely 100% hostile, at least in my experience. Even the worst jobs I've had in my career (and there have been some real whoppers mixed in there) have moments of levity mixed in with the pure misery.

Not making excuses for Kluwe because I believe his Sandusky joke was also over the line but really, I don't think there should be much comparison between the two things, as Kluwe wasn't in a position of power over the brunt of his "joke", as tasteless as it was.

Still, it's pretty odd that so much time passed between the event and him saying something about it... Of course, that could be due to the fact that once he came out against Priefer, he had virtually no shot of returning to the NFL and he knew it. It's a difficult situation.

Having spoken to many women about hostile work places, I find many of the comments here very naive. Most people are afraid to bring up anything about their work environment. Expecting anyone to act immediately, or at all, and then criticizing them when they finally do act, is classic blame the victim.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you.

I have a tough time portraying Kluwe as the vicitim here. Honestly, if he's a better than average punter, then I think the team puts up with the distractions. While Kluwe was averaging slighly more per punt, Locke put more punts inside the 20 and and TBs than Kluwe did... and that was as a rookie. Kluwe had seen his produciton drop each of the last few seasons, and with the distraction that certainly doesn't help.

With that said, I echo the author here, Kluwe was a part of the problem if there were issues in that locker room. This really looks more like a disgruntled employee than anything else.

Locke put a lower percent inside the twenty compression to touch backs. Kluwe had less chances because Walsh was booming kicks.....but none of that is relevant to the work environment. I don't get how people cannot disconnect those two facts. He could stil have his job and be in a hostile work environment. .

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you.

Having spoken to many women about hostile work places, I find many of the comments here very naive. Most people are afraid to bring up anything about their work environment. Expecting anyone to act immediately, or at all, and then criticizing them when they finally do act, is classic blame the victim.

You think it was totally random that the emotions got the better of him at precisely the time multiple teams decided he was no longer worth the veteran's minimum to punt for them?

That doesn't make you, even for a second, pause? Mind you, he had multiple avenues to address the situation that went outside the team hierarchy if he felt that abused and distrustful. Why did he take advantage of none of those options until precisely when his career was over (decided, mind you, by teams not even named the Vikings) and then wrote a scathing article for publicity?

Sorry, but if you want to make Kluwe analogous to sexually harrassed women in the work place, there are a lot of issues with that comparison.

Not making excuses for Kluwe because I believe his Sandusky joke was also over the line but really, I don't think there should be much comparison between the two things, as Kluwe wasn't in a position of power over the brunt of his "joke", as tasteless as it was.

The problem is the huge leap from one to another. Accepting that Preifer made a tasteless joke at Kluwe one time (that's all that has been substantiated by anyone) is a far cry from creating a hostile work environment. Especially if you buy into Loeffler's version of the events.

It could well be true, but to me the only way to accept that there was indeed a hostile work environment is to accept Kluwe's allegations in full. And I have a hell of a hard time doing that especially as evidence to the contrary is abundant.

I do seriously question why Priefer still has a job with the Vikings. Lying about saying what he said to the media and apparently lying to the investigators until evidence was uncovered to me seems like it should have been grounds for immediate dismissal. I've always thought the Vikings lost that part of the PR battle.

Honest and innocent question here, does Priefer making the "nuke the gays" comment and getting frustrated with Kluwe's actions make him "homophobic"?

I'm not sure who is fit to judge, but shouldn't the question be, "Does making a homophobic statement automatically qualify one as a homophobe?" I think the relationship between Kluwe and Priefer make it abundantly clear that the remark was made to anger Kluwe, and most likely only to anger Kluwe.

However, it doesn't make it any less offensive, and his stupidity for making a statement like that to an extremely vocal and media savvy gay-rights player probably speaks as negatively for his qualifications to be a head coach as the actual comment itself. I wouldn't want a guy that obtuse running my team.

Still, I'm with those that say Kluwe got cut because he was an expensive veteran. It probably didn't hurt that the Vikings struck gold with Blair Walsh the year before, I'm sure they were thinking they could repeat that maneuver. To think, all of this could be avoided if teams were allowed to be honest and not fear NFLPA repercussions for stating the obvious, veterans get cut when their salary obligations outweight their performance compared to a replacement player.

Honestly, I'm loathe to comment here. And yet, feel absolutely compelled to. I'm loathe because I'm tired of the subject, because I'm afraid I will only repeat myself from an earlier thread that quickly disappeared on the same subject matter, and because I myself have suffered retribution for a "joke" begun, at my expense, innocent in intention, in which I received repercussions simply for playing along.

For arguement sake, I will repeat that I was a huge fan of Kluwe over the years, as were my boys, as we talked about his wit, his humor, and his convictions. We even laughed and marveled over his letter to the MD senator concerning personal censorship. And I was sorry to see him leave the Vikings after the drafting of Locke, which I knew was coming after the drafting of Walsh the year before.

With all that has transpired, I am no longer a fan of Kluwe, or anything about him.

To be sure, I'm not a fan of Preifer either. I don't care if what he said was a bad joke, or a joke born out of frustration while dealing with the opinionated Kluwe. So what if it was a bad joke? Honestly, really, any or all of you are going to tell me that you haven't made or laughed at a bad taste joke? Kluwe himself, and the reported "witnesses" have stated Priefer's comments were offered as a joke. My only problem is, you can't legislate or successfully argue taste, so why lie about it? That does bother me, but not nearly as much as Kluwe and his actions.

1) Pointed out which I never originally thought of, why wasn't any of this reported to the union? The union has been strangely silent. Are they also convicted homo-phoebes?

2) While still awaiting an appointment with the Vikings to discuss the findings within 48 hrs...you know, the findings of an arbitrary law firm who then had another law firm go over those findings...Kluwe and his attorney screamed from the rafters publicly about lawsuits and and Vikings unwillingness to release findings when it is now public record that Kluwe's own attorney requested the Vikings not release information.

3) I honestly don't care that Kluwe paraded around in pants with a cut out backside to make fun of Penn State and the entire Jerry Sandusky situation. I chalk it up to dark/black humor, regardless of your position on taste, something very human, and something I think we're all guilt of laughing at or making fun of at times. Again, it's human nature. But you instantly lose all moral high ground when you do something like this, and then call for the dismissal and career ruin of Preifer. Honestly Kluwe? The joke about nuking an island compared to the abuse of multiple children? You and Preifer both play stupid at first, then admit it. And I really don't want to get in some debate over taste or depth or anything like that...but...really? Priefer's career should be ruined but you're a victim?

4) The Vikings drafted a K and cut a multiple pro bowl kicker in Longwell. The following season they did the same with Locke and Kluwe. The Vikes cut Kluwe. The Raiders signed and ultimately cut Kluwe. Nobody has signed Kluwe. And we are to believe the Vikings have such far-reaching, league-wide power that they can permanately blackball Kluwe from having a job ever again in the NFL? Boy, it's a good thing Michael Vick, and a few others I could name, never played for the Vikings, or they might have ended up as beggars on the street.

I don't vindicate, or condem Preifer for his "jokes", born out of frustration or misinterpreted. And I don't condem Kluwe for his attempts at commentary or humor either. But I do condem, or at least chose to dismiss, Kluwe as a self-serving hypocrite with a self-serving agenda.

Tremendous article, thank you. Personally, I'm not sure Kluwe cares that much about the locker room atmosphere. I think he's after a few bucks and, as you said, crying over sour grapes. If he cared about locker room atmosphere, he wouldn't have acted out a Sandusky rape scene. Let's look at this for what it really is, Kluwe angry to be cut and looking for a few dollars, and a little publicity to go along with it.

For what it's worth, I'd rather have Jeff Locke moving foreword than Kluwe anyway.